Headphones whilst Cycling?

[BentMikey]

It's not just my view - but that of those setting the standards for cycle training across the whole of the UK. Relying on your hearing almost certainly means that you're not spending enough effort on observation.

Who on here thinks that their observation wouldn't be noted for improvement in some way if they took some training with an experienced cycle instructor? For that matter who thinks they wouldn't benefit from such training? I know I can improve on both in my own riding.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

can you quote the section of Nat Standards where it says hearnig is unimportant?

telling you to look and not rely on hearing is not the same as saying hearing doesn't come into it at all.

I'm sure of you asked bikeability trainers or Nat Standards authors they would not be as dismissive of hearing as you are.

looking and hearing are not mutually exclusive.

 

[tdr1nka]

I used to cycle with music on headphones and now I feel safer that I don't.

If instructing a new commuter I'd advise against it as a general safeguard over distraction. Not unlike driving and talking on a mobile phone, hand held or otherwise.

After a couple of close calls in traffic years ago I realised that where volume hadn't been the issue I had been momentarily distracted by the music and stopped reading and anticipating the traffic ahead.

Aside from my personal experience above I am finding that I'm overtaking more cyclists these days who are plugged in, powering along, staring straight ahead and who jump a mile when I pass because they hadn't a clue that anyone was behind them.

It's cyclists wearing headphones who undertake me in an ASL to RLJ I have bigger issues with.

 

[Hacienda71]

Not judging anyone one way or the other it is all personal choice, but recently i have noticed that i get more wind noise when i commute without headphones than when i do a ride over the weekend on quite country roads with MP3 on low volume level. I am not sure that i am anymore aware of cars coming behind without headphones than with.

 

[Old timer]

These I find good

Apart from other things I`m an amatuer radio enthusiast. I use one of these http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/Info_815.html when I go to bed to listen in to radio as a lullaby
I also use them when working around the garden because it leaves one ear clear for hearing whats going on. I love radio and have just ordered 2 very small FM radios 3"x1" and will use it in conjunction with the single sided ear phone. Nice thing is that(as I said) you still have one ear free and because it is an "over the ear" is is very comfortable. Could this be the answer to still being able to hear whats going on around you when on the road?
BTW they are mono but you can get a simple small adapter " stereo to mono" that will put both stereo chanels into the one ear piece. OK, nothing sounds as good as stereo but at least you might not land up listening to your radio station in a hospital bed.

Just a thought

Dave

 

[Old timer]

Apart from other things I`m an amatuer radio enthusiast. I use one of these http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/Info_815.html when I go to bed to listen in to radio as a lullaby
I also use them when working around the garden because it leaves one ear clear for hearing whats going on. I love radio and have just ordered 2 very small FM radios 3"x1" and will use it in conjunction with the single sided ear phone. Nice thing is that(as I said) you still have one ear free and because it is an "over the ear" is is very comfortable. Could this be the answer to still being able to hear whats going on around you when on the road?
BTW they are mono but you can get a simple small adapter " stereo to mono" that will put both stereo chanels into the one ear piece. OK, nothing sounds as good as stereo but at least you might not land up listening to your radio station in a hospital bed.

Just a thought

Dave

BTW This is the small stereo - mono adapter http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/Info_4143.html
of course if the equipment you are plugged into is mono then you won`t need the adapter.

Dave

 

[BentMikey]

can you quote the section of Nat Standards where it says hearnig is unimportant?

telling you to look and not rely on hearing is not the same as saying hearing doesn't come into it at all.

I'm sure of you asked bikeability trainers or Nat Standards authors they would not be as dismissive of hearing as you are.

looking and hearing are not mutually exclusive.

I don't need to quote anything - I went on the instructor course.

No comment on this bit then? I'll guess that means you know you can improve on your observation.

Who on here thinks that their observation wouldn't be noted for improvement in some way if they took some training with an experienced cycle instructor? For that matter who thinks they wouldn't benefit from such training? I know I can improve on both in my own riding.

 

[Dan B]

I used to think aural awareness was really important. Then I had a near miss with a G-Whiz that was overtaking me, and now I don't rely on it nearly as much.

 

[Stig-OT-Dump]

This really shows how you believe hearing should replace looking. That is not what is taught in National Standards/bikeability, so the experts don't agree with your stance.

Not at all. The post I was responding to was directly comparing the value of aural stimulus on a bike to auiral stimulus in a car and I don't think they can correctly be compared like that.

I would never recommend anyone rely solely on what they can hear and forego observation and I doubt anyone ever would. I do think it correct that noise can act as a prompt for observation - whether that is the noise of possible mechanical fault on your own bike, engine noise behind you or the scampering of paws on a cycle path as a dog runs up behind you because "he's only being friendly".

I don't reckon taste will help me better understand the changes in my environment while I'm cycling, but I am much happier using the other four senses to do so rather than hoping my magical 6th sense will guide me as to opportune moments to cast a backward glance.

This doesn't mean that I frown upon or look down on others who think that a soundtrack makes their cycling infinitely more enjoyable. It just means I'm different to them.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I don't need to quote anything - I went on the instructor course.

Ok We'll just take your word for everytrhing about everything then shall we? Priests of all denominations have been on the instructor course too, is that conclusive proof God exists? Personal opinion without evidence isn't proven fact.

That you won't, or more likely can't, provide such support to your personal opinion that it is Vision uber alles says more about your view of this than mine.

you even contradict your own argument FFS.

No comment on this bit then? I'll guess that means you know you can improve on your observation.

Jeez, only just logged on , my eyes and ears are fine, it's my psychic powers that are obviously lacking, sorry.

I do have other things to do with my life than hang on here waiting for the very moment you choose to reply to some random observation I've made, here isn't the centre of my universe.
I'm going out for a quick ride now and am busy for the rest of the day and won't be back home much before 7pm tonight, I'm also on call and could be phoned a any time for what is usually a long stint of work so don't panic if I'm not on again today. Hope that this is ok with you.

 

[BentMikey]

Not at all. The post I was responding to was directly comparing the value of aural stimulus on a bike to auiral stimulus in a car and I don't think they can correctly be compared like that.

Of course it's directly comparable - why is hearing not important when driving a car, and suddenly critical when riding a bike? Why isn't it important when riding a motorcycle?

I would never recommend anyone rely solely on what they can hear and forego observation and I doubt anyone ever would. I do think it correct that noise can act as a prompt for observation - whether that is the noise of possible mechanical fault on your own bike, engine noise behind you or the scampering of paws on a cycle path as a dog runs up behind you because "he's only being friendly".

That's a fail of observation IMO. Looking should be the thing that's happening all the time, not waiting till you hear something and then look.

 

[Norm]

Of course it's directly comparable - why is hearing not important when driving a car, and suddenly critical when riding a bike? Why isn't it important when riding a motorcycle?

That's an easy one which I've covered elsewhere but I'll do it again.

Cyclists travel much slower than most powered traffic on country roads. We are also treated as immaterial by many drivers / riders of the faster vehicles. We need to use, IMO, sight and sound as warnings of potential hazards approaching from behind.

A car and a motorcycle will be moving at the same speed as the other traffic on the road or, if moving slower, will be given greater consideration by any over-taking vehicle.

 

[andrew-the-tortoise]

Might have been mentioned in a previous post on the subject, but the highway code does mention music.

" Section 148
Safe driving and riding needs concentration.
Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as
loud music (this may mask other sounds)
trying to read maps
inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
arguing with your passengers or other road users
eating and drinking
smoking "

I am in the old school camp on this issue, traffic noise is ancillary but useful information - so why turn off the bat radar? 'Alice in chains' blasting through the sennehisers I would find distracting, or for that matter even a nice bit of Eno..

Also as a pedestrian you are told to stop, look & LISTEN [if that is still the case] when crossing. I believe this similarly applies to many situations on a cycle.

If there was a nasty incident whilst wearing headphones, could this be cited as contributory negligence?

Don't think this will be the last thread on headphone issues!

 

[BentMikey]

Norm, no, that's not working for me. Going faster means you have *more* need to know what's coming, not less. It's just victim blaming to suggest that drivers of "real vehicles" don't need to hear, because everyone else must get out of their way. And that's a pretty good admission of failing to look if you need to hear to know what's coming up from behind.

We aren't talking about loud music, Andrew. Just ordinary music.

 

[Norm]

And that's a pretty good admission of failing to look if you need to hear to know what's coming up from behind.

Two things you are failing to grasp there, Mikey.

1. No-one has said that they need to hear what's coming up behind. It's complimentary, looking and hearing are not mutually exclusive.

2. Without wishing to make it look like some bravado contest, I can't remember the last time something came up behind me when I was on the motorbike.